Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZenPro | Hacker News Reader

You were so close with this line > GCHQ was merely observing to see that the Guardian staff were cooperating. Instructing journalists to remove their 'special storage chips' while leaving others intact would be a breach of operational security

There is nothing more to it. It is the law. I cannot stress this point enough. Destroying the electronic devices was not optional.

It was not a PR move at all. In testimony the Guardian even admitted it was not a PR move. It was necessary.

[Source [Video] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-relea...]

EDIT TO ADD: I really don't care if you think I am a shill shrug - that says more about you and your tolerance of new facts than it says anything about me. The source I posted is from The Guardian, about the Guardian with video testimony from the Guardian. It couldn't be further from GCHQ to be honest.

View on HN

Well,

I think most are agreeing that you are someone who is used to following the procedures of a state which habitually engages in surveillance.

I can believe you when you say "this is what had to be done".

The problem is all this seems orthogonal to the actual question asked by the article - "why these chips?"

Another important part of the Snowden revelations is that "no reason to be paranoid" is no longer a good argument. Every revelation has pointed to "everything the agencies might do to spy on, they in fact did do".

So if certain chips attracts the agencies attention, one might legitimately ask "why?"

I don't know anything about the focus on the chips in particular. I never did anything like that in my destruction and I cannot comment credibly on that part of the story.

I can only comment on why the magnetic media had to be destroyed. The how they went about is fair game for people on HN to speculate and question. I am not trying to stop anyone.

I also never said people should not be paranoid. I actually wrote a recent article saying that people should question their intelligence services. However, they also have a responsibility to read the answers that are provided via legislative and parliamentary vehicles.

If the majority of the HN audience were invited to a tour of GCHQ, given free reign to explore and then access to the myriad databases and tools - they would be bored within hours, look up and say

"Now take me to the real secret stuff."

It honestly is not that exciting. It is just a massive bureaucracy with various departments, some of which are doing bleeding edge stuff. When it comes to security it is all very routine and in line with standardised frameworks.

From your own link:

> "It was purely a symbolic act," Johnson said. "We knew that. GCHQ knew that. And the government knew that," He added: "It was the most surreal event I have witnessed in British journalism."

"Symbolic act" means "PR move".

...then Johnson was asked. "Was it a PR move?" to which he responded. "No. I wouldn't say that."

According to Google, the only instance of "'Was it a PR move?' to which he responded. 'No. I wouldn't say that.'" on the entire internet is in your comment. Where did that quote come from?

Excellent observation. Let's dissect it.

Here is the classic problem with trial by Google - we cannot verify exactly what you have typed into Google but let us take you at face value and say you cannot find a match.

It is reasonable to assume I have a credible source - after all I have mentioned it alongside a reference several times. You surface skimmed the referenced article and cherry picked the data that you needed without observing the fact the article is based upon a video of the hearing involving the Guardian. They are literally writing up the events of the video which is embedded in the article itself.

Whereby the comment, which you claim exists nowhere on the "entire internet" is contained. It is spoken directly to the Chair of the Hearing in response to the question "Was it a PR move?".

Funny the Guardian failed to write up that little exchange...

"Trial by Google"? What the hell are you talking about? I merely asked where the quote came from, and observed that I first made an attempt to locate it on my own.

I take it you have now watched the video and concede that you are wrong.

I don't mean "it's open to interpretation" but I mean flat out wrong. The Guardian admitted it was not a PR stunt.

I accept your concession.

Well no, those are clearly the words of somebody who thinks to himself, "shit, did I just say that? Better deny it."

Let's be honest for a second: are you actually trying to discredit the NSA and GCHQ? Because behaving like a complete ass while defending them is a great way to do that.

You still think that they give a fuck?

I take your accusation of being an ass to mean "ZenPro is right, I cannot disprove him so I will now result to insults and ad-hominems."

Bore off.

I adore the common double standard, wherein making a statement like "I accept your concession" when both parties know that wasn't the intent is considered OK, but calling out that behavior is not.

My shill alarm is off the scale while reading your posts.

Surely you have a link to that law...

He's such an obvious and terrible shill that I honestly think there's a decent possibility he's actually shilling for the other side. That is to say, he's deliberately attempting to discredit the NSA, GCHQ, and everyone who sides with them by defending them so badly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com